G.R.No.174238.July7,2009.

ANITA CHENG, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES WILLIAM SY

andTESSIESY,respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Estafa; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22;
Bouncing Checks Law; The rule is that upon the filing of the estafa
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases against respondents, where the
petitioner has not made any waiver, express reservation to litigate
separately, or has not instituted the corresponding civil action to
collect the amount of P600,000.00 and damages prior to the
criminal action, the civil action is deemed instituted with the
criminalcases.The rule is that upon the filing of the estafa and
BPBlg.22casesagainstrespondents,wherethepetitionerhasnot
made any waiver, express reservation to litigate separately, or has
notinstitutedthecorrespondingcivilactiontocollecttheamountof
P600,000.00 and damages prior to the criminal action, the civil
actionisdeemedinstitutedwiththecriminalcases.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The possible single civil liability
arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the subject
of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the
prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
simultaneously available to the complaining party, without
traversing the prohibition against forum shopping.This rule
applies especially with the advent of the 2000 Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure. Thus, during the pendency of both the estafa
andtheBPBlg.22cases,theactiontorecoverthecivilliabilitywas
impliedly instituted and remained pending before the respective
trial courts. This is consonant with our ruling in Rodriguez v.
Ponferrada, 465 SCRA 338 (2005), that the possible single civil
liabilityarisingfromtheactofissuingabouncingcheckcanbethe
subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case
and the prosecution for violation of BP Blg. 22, simultaneously
available to the complaining party, without traversing the
prohibitionagainstforumshopping.Priortothejudgmentineither
the estafa case or the BP Blg. 22 case, petitioner, as the
complainant, cannot be deemed to have elected either of the civil

actions
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.

156

156

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

both impliedly instituted in the said criminal proceedings to the

exclusionoftheother.
Same; It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases
already pending at the time of their promulgation.Petitionerisin
error when she insists that the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
should not apply because she filed her BP Blg. 22 complaints in
1999. It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases
already pending at the time of their promulgation. The fact that
procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants rights does
not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. It is
axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does
notviolateanyrightofapersonwhomayfeelthatheisadversely
affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason for this
is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise
from,procedurallaws.
Same; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Bouncing Checks Law; The
criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 includes
the corresponding civil action to recover the amount of the checks.
UnderthepresentrevisedRules,thecriminalactionforviolationof
BP Blg. 22 includes the corresponding civil action to recover the
amountofthechecks.Itshouldbestressed,thispolicyisintendedto
discourage the separate filing of the civil action. In fact, the Rules
evenprohibitsthereservationofaseparatecivilaction,i.e.,onecan
no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is
filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are
allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case.
Even then, the Rules encourages the consolidation of the civil and
criminal cases. Thus, where petitioners rights may be fully
adjudicated in the proceedings before the court trying the BP Blg.
22cases,resorttoaseparateactiontorecovercivilliabilityisclearly
unwarranted on account of res judicata, for failure of petitioner to

appeal the civil aspect of the cases. In view of this special rule
governingactionsforviolationofBPBlg.22,Article31oftheCivil
Codeisnotapplicable.
Same; Appeals; Failure to appeal within the reglementary period
was tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to recover the
civil liability of respondents.Faced with the dismissal of the BP
Blg.22cases,petitionersrecoursepursuanttotheprevailingrules
of procedure would have been to appeal the civil action to recover
the
157

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

157

Cheng vs. Sy
amountloanedtorespondentscorrespondingtothebouncedchecks.
Hence, the said civil action may proceed requiring only a
preponderance of evidence on the part of petitioner. Her failure to
appealwithinthereglementaryperiodwastantamounttoawaiver
altogetheroftheremedytorecoverthecivilliabilityofrespondents.
However,duetothegrossmistakeoftheprosecutorintheBPBlg.
22cases,weareconstrainedtodigressfromthisrule.Itistruethat
clientsareboundbythemistakes,negligenceandomissionoftheir
counsel.Butthisruleadmitsofexceptions(1)wherethecounsels
mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and
denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross
negligenceresultingintheclientsdeprivationoflibertyorproperty
withoutdueprocessoflaw.Testedagainsttheseguidelines,wehold
thatpetitionerslotfallswithintheexceptions.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Pleadings and Practice; Lawyers in the
government service are expected to be more conscientious in the
performance of their duties as they are subject to public scrutiny.It
is an oftrepeated exhortation to counsels to be wellinformed of
existing laws and rules and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. Unless they
faithfullycomplywithsuchduty,theymaynotbeabletodischarge
competentlyanddiligentlytheirobligationsasmembersoftheBar.
Further,lawyersinthegovernmentserviceareexpectedtobemore
conscientiousintheperformanceoftheirdutiesastheyaresubject
to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the Bar but are
also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
Apparently, the public prosecutor neglected to equip himself with
the knowledge of the proper procedure for BP Blg. 22 cases under

the2000RulesonCriminalProceduresuchthathefailedtoappeal
the civil action impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases, the
only remaining remedy available to petitioner to be able to recover
the money she loaned to respondents, upon the dismissal of the
criminal cases on demurrer. By this failure, petitioner was denied
herdayincourttoprosecutetherespondentsfortheirobligationto
paytheirloan.
Unjust Enrichment; Solutio Indebiti; There is unjust enrichment
when 1) a person is unjustly benefited, and 2) such benefit is
derived at the expense of or with damages to another.Wetakeinto
consideration the trial courts observation when it dismissed the
estafachargeinCriminalCaseNo.98969953thatiftherewasany
liabilityonthepartofrespondents,itwascivilinnature.Hence,if
158

158

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

the loan be proven true, the inability of petitioner to recover the

loaned amount would be tantamount to unjust enrichment of
respondents,astheymaynowconvenientlyevadepaymentoftheir
obligation merely on account of a technicality applied against
petitioner.Thereisunjustenrichmentwhen(1)apersonisunjustly
benefited,and(2)suchbenefitisderivedattheexpenseoforwith
damagestoanother.Thisdoctrinesimplymeansthatapersonshall
not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at anothers
expense. One condition for invoking this principle of unjust
enrichmentisthattheaggrievedpartyhasnootherrecoursebased
on contract, quasicontract, crime, quasidelict or any other
provisionoflaw.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The dispensation of justice
and vindication of legitimate grievances should not be barred by
technicalities.Court litigations are primarily designed to search
for the truth, and a liberal interpretation and application of the
rules which will give the parties the fullest opportunity to adduce
proof is the best way to ferret out the truth. The dispensation of
justiceandvindicationoflegitimategrievancesshouldnotbebarred
by technicalities. For reasons of substantial justice and equity, as
the complement of the legal jurisdiction that seeks to dispense
justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules
and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special
circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so, we thus rule, pro
hac vice,infavorofpetitioner.

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order of the

RegionalTrialCourtofManila,Br.18.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
James Dennis C. Gumpal forpetitioner.
Felipe G. Pacquingforrespondents.
NACHURA,J.:
Thisisapetition1forreviewoncertiorariunderRule45
oftheRulesofCourtoftheOrderdatedJanuary2,20062of
the
_______________
1Rollo,pp.319.
2Id.,atpp.2227.
159

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

159

Cheng vs. Sy
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Manila in Civil
Case No. 05112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses
William Sy and Tessie Sy.
Theantecedentsareasfollows
Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases before
the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent spouses
William and Tessie Sy (Criminal Case No. 98969952
againstTessieSyandCriminalCaseNo.98969953against
WilliamSy)forissuingtoherPhilippineBankofCommerce
(PBC)CheckNos.171762and71860forP300,000.00each,
in payment of their loan, both of which were dishonored
upon presentment for having been drawn against a closed
account.
Meanwhile, based on the same facts, petitioner, on
January20,1999,filedagainstrespondentstwo(2)casesfor
violationofBatas Pambansa Bilang(BPBlg.)22beforethe
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 25, Manila
(CriminalCaseNos.34145859).
On March 16, 2004, the RTC, Branch 7, Manila
dismissed the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to
prove the elements of the crime. The Order dismissing
CriminalCaseNo.98969952containednodeclarationasto
thecivilliabilityofTessieSy.3Ontheotherhand,theOrder
in Criminal Case No. 98969953 contained a statement,

Hence, if there is any liability of the accused, the same is

purelycivil,notcriminalinnature.4
Later, the MeTC, Branch 25, Manila, dismissed, on
demurrer,theBPBlg.22casesinitsOrder5datedFebruary
7,2005onaccountofthefailureofpetitionertoidentifythe
accused respondents in open court. The Order also did not
makeanypronouncementastothecivilliabilityofaccused
respondents.
_______________
3Id.,atpp.4547.
4Id.,atpp.4850.
5Id.,atpp.4244.
160

160

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

OnApril26,2005,petitionerlodgedagainstrespondents
before the RTC, Branch 18, Manila, a complaint6 for
collectionofasumofmoneywithdamages(CivilCaseNo.
05112452) based on the same loaned amount of
P600,000.00 covered by the two PBC checks previously
subjectoftheestafaandBPBlg.22cases.
IntheassailedOrder7datedJanuary2,2006,theRTC,
Branch 18, Manila, dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction,ratiocinatingthatthecivilactiontocollectthe
amountofP600,000.00withdamageswasalreadyimpliedly
instituted in the BP Blg. 22 cases in light of Section 1,
paragraph(b)ofRule111oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration8 which the
court denied in its Order9 dated June 5, 2006. Hence, this
petition,raisingthesolelegalissue
Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 5797 on the
RulesandGuidelinesinthefilingandprosecutionofcriminalcases
under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the present case where the
natureoftheorderdismissingthecasesforbouncingchecksagainst
the respondents was [based] on the failure of the prosecution to
identifyboththeaccused(respondentsherein)?10

Essentially, petitioner argues that since the BP Blg. 22

cases were filed on January 20, 1999, the 2000 Revised
RulesonCriminalProcedurepromulgatedonDecember1,
2000shouldnotapply,asitmustbegivenonlyprospective
application. She further contends that that her case falls
within the following exceptions to the rule that the civil
action correspondent to the criminal action is deemed
institutedwiththelatter
_______________
6Id.,atpp.5153.
7Supranote2.
8Rollo,pp.2838.
9Id.,atp.41.
10Id.,atp.6.
161

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

161

Cheng vs. Sy

(1)additional evidence as to the identities of the accused is

necessaryfortheresolutionofthecivilaspectofthecase;
(2)a separate complaint would be just as efficacious as or even
more expedient than a timely remand to the trial court where
the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the civil
aspectofthecase;
(3)thetrialcourtfailedtomakeanypronouncementastothecivil
liabilityoftheaccusedamountingtoareservationoftherightto
havethecivilliabilitylitigatedinaseparateaction;
(4)thetrialcourtdidnotdeclarethatthefactsfromwhichthecivil
liabilitymightarisedidnotexist;
(5)the civil complaint is based on an obligation excontractu and
notexdelictopursuanttoArticle3111oftheCivilCode;and
(6)the claim for civil liability for damages may be had under
Article2912oftheCivilCode.

Petitioner also points out that she was not assisted by

anyprivateprosecutorintheBPBlg.22proceedings.
TheruleisthatuponthefilingoftheestafaandBPBlg.
22casesagainstrespondents,wherethepetitionerhasnot
madeanywaiver,expressreservationtolitigateseparately,

orhasnotinstitutedthecorrespondingcivilactiontocollect
the amount of P600,000.00 and damages prior to the
criminal
_______________
11 Art. 31.When the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardlessoftheresultofthelatter.
12 Art. 29.When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omissionmaybeinstituted.Suchactionrequiresonlyapreponderance
of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
shouldbefoundtobemalicious.
162

162

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

action, the civil action is deemed instituted with the

criminalcases.13
Thisruleappliesespeciallywiththeadventofthe2000
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, during the
pendency of both the estafa and the BP Blg. 22 cases, the
actiontorecoverthecivilliabilitywasimpliedlyinstituted
and remained pending before the respective trial courts.
This is consonant with our ruling in Rodriguez v.
Ponferrada14that
_______________
13 Section1.Institution of criminal and civil actions.When
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it
separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised
PenalCode,anddamagesunderArticles32,33,34and2176oftheCivil
Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The

institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil
actionsseparatelywaivestheothers.
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions
shallbemadebeforetheprosecutionstartstopresentitsevidenceand
under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunitytomakesuchreservation.
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the
sameactoromissionoftheaccused.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages,
the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual
damages.
In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is
alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees
shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for
trial.(Rule111,1988RulesonCriminalProcedure)
14G.R.Nos.15553134,July29,2005,465SCRA338.
163

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

163

Cheng vs. Sy
the possible single civil liability arising from the act of
issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil
actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the
prosecution for violation of BP Blg. 22, simultaneously
available to the complaining party, without traversing the
prohibitionagainstforumshopping.15Priortothejudgment
ineithertheestafacaseortheBPBlg.22case,petitioner,
asthecomplainant,cannotbedeemedtohaveelectedeither
of the civil actions both impliedly instituted in the said
criminalproceedingstotheexclusionoftheother.16
The dismissal of the estafa cases for failure of the
prosecution to prove the elements of the crime beyond
reasonable doubtwhere in Criminal Case No. 98969952
therewasnopronouncementasregardsthecivilliabilityof
theaccusedandinCriminalCaseNo.98969953wherethe
trialcourtdeclaredthattheliabilityoftheaccusedwasonly
civilinnatureproducedthelegaleffectofareservationby
the petitioner of her right to litigate separately the civil
action impliedly instituted with the estafa cases, following
Article29oftheCivilCode.17
However, although this civil action could have been

litigatedseparatelyonaccountofthedismissaloftheestafa
cases on reasonable doubt, the petitioner was deemed to
have also elected that such civil action be prosecuted
togetherwiththeBPBlg.22casesinlightoftheRodriguez
v. Ponferradaruling.
WiththedismissaloftheBPBlg.22casesforfailureto
establish the identity of the accused, the question that
arisesiswhethersuchdismissalwouldhavethesamelegal
effect as the dismissed estafa cases. Put differently, may
petitioners
_______________
15Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, id.,atp.350.
16Ibid.
17Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals, 253 Phil. 425, 433; 171 SCRA 429,
439(1989),citingBernaldes, Jr. v. Bohol Land Transportation, Inc., 117
Phil. 288, 291292; 7 SCRA 276, 280 (1963) and Bachrach Motors Co. v.
Gamboa,101Phil.1219(1957).
164

164

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

actiontorecoverrespondentscivilliabilitybealsoallowed
to prosper separately after the BP Blg. 22 cases were
dismissed?
Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
CriminalProcedurestates
Section1.Institution of criminal and civil actions.
xxx
(b)ThecriminalactionforviolationofBatasPambansaBlg.22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservationtofilesuchcivilactionseparatelyshallbeallowed.
Upon filing of the joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the
check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts
allegedtherein.Iftheamountsarenotsoallegedbutanyofthese
damages [is] subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees
based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the

judgment.
Wherethecivilactionhasbeenfiledseparatelyandtrialthereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
actionuponapplicationwiththecourttryingthelattercase.Ifthe
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordancewithsection2ofthisRulegoverningconsolidationofthe
civilandcriminalactions.

Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000

RulesonCriminalProcedureshouldnotapplybecauseshe
filed her BP Blg. 22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled
thatrulesofprocedureapplyeventocasesalreadypending
atthetimeoftheirpromulgation.Thefactthatprocedural
statutes may somehow affect the litigants rights does not
precludetheirretroactiveapplicationtopendingactions.It
is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural
lawsdoesnotviolateanyrightofapersonwhomayfeelthat
he is adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally
objectionable.Thereasonfor
165

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

165

Cheng vs. Sy
thisisthat,asageneralrule,novestedrightmayattachto,
norarisefrom,procedurallaws.18
Indeed, under the present revised Rules, the criminal
actionforviolationofBPBlg.22includesthecorresponding
civilactiontorecovertheamountofthechecks.Itshouldbe
stressed, this policy is intended to discourage the separate
filingofthecivilaction.Infact,theRulesevenprohibitsthe
reservationofaseparatecivilaction,i.e.,onecannolonger
fileaseparatecivilcaseafterthecriminalcomplaintisfiled
incourt.Theonlyinstancewhenseparateproceedingsare
allowediswhenthecivilactionisfiledaheadofthecriminal
case.Eventhen,theRulesencouragestheconsolidationof
thecivilandcriminalcases.Thus,wherepetitionersrights
maybefullyadjudicatedintheproceedingsbeforethecourt
trying the BP Blg. 22 cases, resort to a separate action to
recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted on account of
res judicata, for failure of petitioner to appeal the civil
aspect of the cases. In view of this special rule governing
actions for violation of BP Blg. 22, Article 31 of the Civil
Codeisnotapplicable.19

Beitrememberedthatrulesgoverningprocedurebefore
the courts, while not cast in stone, are for the speedy,
efficient, and orderly dispensation of justice and should
thereforebeadheredtoinordertoattainthisobjective.20
However, in applying the procedure discussed above, it
appears that petitioner would be left without a remedy to
recoverfromrespondentstheP600,000.00allegedlyloaned
fromher.ThiscouldprejudiceeventhepetitionersNoticeof
Claim involving the same amount filed in Special
ProceedingsNo.9888390(Petition for Voluntary Insolvency
by Kolin Enter
_______________
18Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,424Phil.556,559;373SCRA524,536
(2002).
19 Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix
Corp.,G.R.No.163597,July29,2005,465SCRA454,461462.
20Id.
166

166

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

prises, William Sy and Tessie Sy),whichcasewasreportedly

archived for failure to prosecute the petition for an
unreasonable length of time.21 Expectedly, respondents
would raise the same defense that petitioner had already
elected to litigate the civil action to recover the amount of
thechecksalongwiththeBPBlg.22cases.
Itisinthislightthatwefindpetitionerscontentionthat
shewasnotassistedbyaprivateprosecutorduringtheBP
Blg. 22 proceedings critical. Petitioner indirectly protests
thatthepublicprosecutorfailedtoprotectandprosecuteher
causewhenhefailedtohaveherestablishtheidentitiesof
the accused during the trial and when he failed to appeal
the civil action deemed impliedly instituted with the BP
Blg.22cases.Onthisground,weagreewithpetitioner.
Faced with the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases,
petitioners recourse pursuant to the prevailing rules of
procedure would have been to appeal the civil action to
recovertheamountloanedtorespondentscorrespondingto
thebouncedchecks.Hence,thesaidcivilactionmayproceed
requiring only a preponderance of evidence on the part of

petitioner. Her failure to appeal within the reglementary

periodwastantamounttoawaiveraltogetheroftheremedy
torecoverthecivilliabilityofrespondents.However,dueto
thegrossmistakeoftheprosecutorintheBPBlg.22cases,
weareconstrainedtodigressfromthisrule.
It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes,
negligence and omission of their counsel.22 But this rule
admitsofexceptions(1)wherethecounselsmistakeisso
great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied
hisdayincourt,or(2)wherethecounselisguiltyofgross
negligenceresultingintheclientsdeprivationoflibertyor
propertywithoutdueprocess
_______________
21Rollo,p.23.
22Lynx Industries Contractor, Inc. v. Tala,G.R.No.164333,August
24,2007,531SCRA169,176.
167

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

167

Cheng vs. Sy
of law.23 Tested against these guidelines, we hold that
petitionerslotfallswithintheexceptions.
It is an oftrepeated exhortation to counsels to be well
informedofexistinglawsandrulesandtokeepabreastwith
legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.
Unlesstheyfaithfullycomplywithsuchduty,theymaynot
be able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligationsasmembersoftheBar.24Further,lawyersinthe
governmentserviceareexpectedtobemoreconscientiousin
theperformanceoftheirdutiesastheyaresubjecttopublic
scrutiny.TheyarenotonlymembersoftheBarbutarealso
publicservantswhooweutmostfidelitytopublicservice.25
Apparently,thepublicprosecutorneglectedtoequiphimself
withtheknowledgeoftheproperprocedureforBPBlg.22
cases under the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure such
thathefailedtoappealthecivilactionimpliedlyinstituted
with the BP Blg. 22 cases, the only remaining remedy
availabletopetitionertobeabletorecoverthemoneyshe
loaned to respondents, upon the dismissal of the criminal
casesondemurrer.Bythisfailure,petitionerwasdeniedher
day in court to prosecute the respondents for their

obligationtopaytheirloan.
Moreover, we take into consideration the trial courts
observationwhenitdismissedtheestafachargeinCriminal
Case No. 98969953 that if there was any liability on the
partofrespondents,itwascivilinnature.Hence,iftheloan
be proven true, the inability of petitioner to recover the
loanedamountwouldbetantamounttounjustenrichment
of respondents, as they may now conveniently evade
paymentoftheir
_______________
23CenizaManantan v. People,G.R.No.156248,August28,2007,531
SCRA364,380.
24 Santiago v. Atty. Rafanan, 483 Phil. 94, 105; 440 SCRA 91, 101
(2004).
25Ramos v. Imbang,A.C.No.6788,August23,2007,530SCRA759,
768.
168

168

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cheng vs. Sy

obligation merely on account of a technicality applied

againstpetitioner.
Thereisunjustenrichmentwhen(1)apersonisunjustly
benefited,and(2)suchbenefitisderivedattheexpenseofor
withdamagestoanother.Thisdoctrinesimplymeansthata
person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself
inequitablyatanothersexpense.Oneconditionforinvoking
this principle of unjust enrichment is that the aggrieved
party has no other recourse based on contract, quasi
contract,crime,quasidelictoranyotherprovisionoflaw.26
Courtlitigationsareprimarilydesignedtosearchforthe
truth, and a liberal interpretation and application of the
rules which will give the parties the fullest opportunity to
adduce proof is the best way to ferret out the truth. The
dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate
grievances should not be barred by technicalities.27 For
reasonsofsubstantialjusticeandequity,asthecomplement
ofthelegaljurisdictionthatseekstodispensejusticewhere
courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and
want of power to adapt their judgments to the special
circumstancesofcases,areincompetenttodoso,28wethus

rule,pro hac vice,infavorofpetitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Civil Case
No.05112452entitledAnita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy
and Tessie Sy is hereby ordered REINSTATED. No
pronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago (Chairperson), ChicoNazario, Velasco,
Jr. and Peralta, JJ.,concur.

_______________
26 Chieng v. Santos, G.R. No. 169647, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA
730,747748.
27LCK Industries, Inc. v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No.
170606,November23,2007,538SCRA634,653.
28Id.,atp.652.
169

VOL.592,JULY7,2009

169

Cheng vs. Sy
Petition granted, Civil Case No. 05112452 entitled Anita
Cheng vs. Sps. William Sy and Tesse Sy reinstated.
Note.Whenapartyfilesacriminalcaseforviolationof
BatasPambansaBlg.22,hiscivilactionforrecoveryofthe
amount of the dishonored check is impliedly instituted
therein pursuant to Section 1(b) of Rules 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure. (Chieng vs. Santos, 531
SCRA730[2007])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.